And a belief in a god or the supernatural cannot be justified by the scientific method. That doesn’t mean that belief is inconsistent with science. (Again, using “inconsistent” in the strict epistemological sense.) — Noah Te Stroete
Do you think that consistency has anything to do with coherency? Some do. — Noah Te Stroete
No. In the informal usage of the ignorant it may sometimes seem to, but they misspeak, and in misspeaking their speaking is not the speaking of Christianity. Claims made by Christians are claims as matters of faith and belief - and that is all. No science, no claim of truth, except in misspeaking faith. That is, correctly understood, there is no discussion of merit here. — tim wood
They're inconsistent in the sense which matters most, which is the logical sense. — S
You're apparently using Abrahamic religion as your only point of reference.
I don't have any "scripture" at all, as my religion is not a revealed religion.
We have an abundance of religious texts and mythology, but all of these we acknowledge as being written by human beings. There may be bits of divine revelation among those texts, but we have no method nor any desire to hunt for those bits, because this is not the point.
Mythology is meant to be metaphorical, and our conceptions of gods and goddesses are naturally allegorical. The aim of myth is to give us a framework of meaning and reference to understand our place in the world. And myth teaches us useful insights by pointing out certain archetypes and structures. — WerMaat
I personally believe that the gods and goddesses exist, that I can interact with them in meaningful ways and that one of them created our world (ok, more like three of them, but it's complicated :grin: ) Therefore: Theist. (Polytheist, to be precise) — WerMaat
If you're a Christian, for example, then that means that you have a set of key beliefs, or things you'd claim to be true.
— S
So, you claim to speak for all Christians? (And take note that the OP is not specifically about the compatibility of science with Christianity). — Janus
The point about metaphor in religion is that religious ideas such as the resurrection of Christ need not be taken literally, and if they are not, then there is no coherent question about their compatibility with science. (Even on a literal interpretation that Christ's resurrection actually took place, and is thus to be considered an empirical event; it is not an event that science could investigate, since it took place 2000 years ago). Same goes for most of history, in fact.
Most religions, whether primitive, ancient or modern, think the existence of spiritual beings. Since the existence of spiritual beings, or the spirituality of empirical beings is not a question science can either ask or answer, there would seem to be no inherent incompatibility between science and religion. — Janus
Most religions, whether primitive, ancient or modern, think the existence of spiritual beings. Since the existence of spiritual beings, or the spirituality of empirical beings is not a question science can either ask or answer, there would seem to be no inherent incompatibility between science and religion. — Janus
In other words, you want these absurd claims shielded from scientific scrutiny, on the basis of a complete irrelevancy, namely that they are taken upon faith.
Well, no. — S
Sure, except that you don't really believe that if that's all a metaphor for something else entirely. You can't have it both ways. — S
Well, for me whatever causes our conscious experience which made the laws of nature discoverable is what I call “God.” I suppose I don’t need to call it that. I could call it “Sally.” — Noah Te Stroete
Or you could just not give that a silly name. — S
It’s my personal preference which isn’t subject to the scientific method, nor is it inconsistent with science. — Noah Te Stroete
There's a name for someone who has no literal theistic beliefs: an atheist. I'm not talking about atheists. I specifically addressed theistic religions in my original comment. — S
And even for those claims which science can't investigate, there's still an inconsistency, as the scientifically-minded person would be a sceptic, not a believer, with regard to these claims. It's either one or the other. It can't be both. — S
A subject that is unanswerable by the scientific method, but that brings us to the “hard problem,” and I’m not interested in having that debate here. — Noah Te Stroete
All that demonstrates is an incompatibility between the mind-set of faith and the mind-set of skepticism when it comes to questions that are not within the purview of science; it indicates no inherent incompatibility between science and religion (or Christianity in this case). — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.